Frominside.com

Only The Guilty Go Quietly To The Gallows.

The story you are about to read is true; the
names of the guilty have not been changed as they have no innocence to
protect. The events described herein can be substantiated by verifiable
and incontrovertible documentary evidence. The facts speak for
themselves.

The United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, at San Diego, is not a wicker basket
holding one bad apple, not some small dark crevice wherein slither a few
snakes, not even a den of thieves. To be sure, bad apples, vipers and
thieves do abound there, but the reality is much more distasteful,
venomous and threatening. In fact, that courthouse harbors an assemblage
of the most corrupt magistrates and judges (hereinafter referred to
collectively as "judges") to sit anywhere in the United States, and perhaps
the world. Verifiable documentary evidence proves that those judges
routinely fail their Oaths Of Office, flagrantly ignore binding precedents
of the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals and United States Supreme Court, and
contemptuously violate the Constitution. Every judge therein - - not a
single one of them is innocent -- is guilty of egregious transgressions.
While each of them bears his/her personal degree of guilt, one of them,
rises, like miasma from a swamp, above his cohorts in the volume and
magnitude of his criminal acts. This writing addresses the inherent
criminality of magistrate Larry A. Burns and the acts (by commission
and/or omission) of his brethren in their desperate ill-agenda to protect
him from responsibility for his malfeasance and the liability that they,
perhaps too quickly, assume would follow. Read on and you will be
outraged; investigate and you will clamor for the impeachment of every
judge of the San Diego district court.

In 1988, Burns, as an assistant U.S.
Attorney ’ prosecuted me in district court on two counts under 18 U.S.C
�844(i), while simultaneously prostituting himself to the State of
California so as to prosecute me for a murder that (a) I am 100% innocent
of, (b) the state declined to prosecute, and (c) he boasted to defense
counsel that he was "morally certain" I did not commit the murder but "bet"
he could "win" a conviction. To "win" federal and state convictions Burns
engaged in a sweeping pattern of criminal conduct designed to convict an
innocent man including, but not limited to:

1. concealing from the defense and the court
evidence both (a) material to the impeachment of government witnesses, and
(b) exculpatory to me, for example Burns personally kept my government
administered polygraph test results, proving my innocence of the murder,
out of all court files; despite years of exhaustive efforts Burns
continues to unscrupulously conceal those results (one would reasonably
question for what reason, unless the test results prove my innocence, has
Burns steadfastly maintained concealment of those results for
thirteen-years);

2. once the biological evidence from the
crime scene was established not to be from me the government suppressed
it. Despite my continued efforts for over a decade to have the DNA
evidence tested, the government has delayed and stalled testing that
evidence, because the government knows it to be determinative of my
innocence;

3. suborned perjury;

4. fabricated evidence;

5. covertly destroyed evidence favorable to
the defense;

6. a foot print, not that of the known
residents and proven not to be mine, was ignored and never
identified;

7. a suicide letter left by reluctant
government witness, David Johnson, shortly after being informed of my
conviction, was provided to Burns and trial judge, David. B. Moon, who
decided to seal it from defense/appellate counsel; the contents of that
letter remain known only to Burns and Moon (what information is contained
in Johnson’s letter that so undermines Harrison’s conviction that Burns
and Moon felt compelled to seal it?); and

8. to assure scripted testimony, Burns
shielded from all prosecution an admitted incestuous pedophile, an
assortment of criminals, and personally guaranteed to protect and was
proactive in protecting the person who is likely the actual killer (Gary
Jenkins’ failed polygraph test was also concealed and kept out of all
government files by Burns, and has never been disclosed; further, Jenkins
lied to homicide investigators in attempting to fabricate an alibi --
discovered by the defense to have no alibi, and shown to be in the area of
the crime scene at the time of the murder, drove the truck identified
at the crime scene, was involved in flagrant extra-marital affairs, had recently battered the victim and argued with the
victim the morning of the murder, knowingly delayed returning to the crime
scene when informed of an emergency, and collected hundreds-of-thousands
of dollars as a direct result of the murder).

The entire case against me was 100%
circumstantial. There was no evidence of any kind linking me to the crime.
Nonetheless, Burns was fanatical and selected me as the most expedient
scapegoat to further a career already steeped in iniquity. Inconveniences
surrounding my factual and moral innocence were trifles to be blinked
away. Burns’ gross illegalities reeked throughout the federal and state
prosecutions, and remain under intense scrutiny in various courts of
appeal, collateral proceedings and private investigations. Indeed, in one
of the rarest events in all jurisprudence, Burns, a sitting judge, was
ordered by a fellow judge (in this case an out-of-state judge) to submit
to being deposed by defense counsel concerning matters of the murder case.
True to his oily character, Burns was arrogant and uncooperative at his
deposition (in many instances flatly refusing to answer the questions put
to him). Your investigations will reveal the truth and accuracy of the
matters asserted herein. Be assured, state and federal case files teem
with documentary evidence of every assertion. To be clear, this writing
does not seek your valuable time and energies as an advocate of my
vindication, although vindication will come as a natural occurrence from
your investigations of Burns’ criminality and those corrupt judges whose
ill-agenda it is to protect him; your greater cause is that of protecting
the citizenry from the bad apples, vipers and thieves of the San Diego
district court -- lest they select one of you as their next sacrificial
lamb. Let me give you some examples of what you will discover.

Not only am I innocent of the state murder,
as the polygraph and Burns’ boasting attest, and DNA test results would
prove, but the Supreme Court has ruled that I stand convicted of null and
void federal offenses (convictions for nonexistent offenses). To protect
Burns, his fellow judges refuse to vacate those convictions. In May, 2000,
the Supreme Court decided a case that defined 18 U.S.C. � 844(i). Section
844(i) is the federal criminal statute prohibiting the destruction of
property affecting interstate commerce. The octopus that is � 844(i), the
Supreme Court ruled, may only reach up from the depths in specific
instances where the property affected was itself "used in commerce or in
an activity affecting commerce." See, Jones. v. United States,
529 U.S. 848, 859 (2000). Mere peripheral association with
interstate commerce does not suffice to feed the leviathan. For example,
the arson of a personal residence or blowing up your partners new
automobile, while possibly violating state laws, are not federal offenses
under � 844(i). However, the arson of a rental property or blowing up a
taxi cab do affect interstate commerce because of their commercial use
nature, therefore, in such instances you will find yourself entangled
within the tentacles of federal prosecution. The Jones holding
invalidated my two � 844(i) convictions because the properties affected of
those charged offenses were not "used in" interstate commerce.
The Supreme Court's holding established that the federal government never
had the authority over, or the subject-matter jurisdiction to prosecute in
the first place, what were, if anything, violations of state law.
Moreover, there are few areas of jurisprudence as well-settled as the
axiom that subject-matter jurisdiction can never be waived: can not be
conferred unto the court by agreement of the parties, is not lost upon
conviction or plea, never abandoned for failure to raise the challenge at
any earlier stage of the proceedings, nor can it be forfeited by the
passage of time. A conviction by a court without authority and
jurisdiction is "coram non judice; in which case no valid judgment could
be rendered." See, Ex Parte Tobias Watkins, 28 U.S. 193, 204 (1830).
That conviction "is a legal nullity ... ‘not a decision at all’",
see, Billingsley v. C.I.R., 868 F.2d 1081, 1085 (9thCir.1989),
and "is as grave an error as a court can commit." See, Dred Scott
v. Sandford, 19 How 393, 428 (1856). Such a conviction is the
stillbirth resulting of a rape of the Constitution. Indeed, the Ninth
Circuit Court Of Appeals recently reiterated that "[a] conviction based on
a ‘theory of culpability that did not exist’ violates due process", and
further expressed that "[n]owhere in this country can any man be condemned
for a nonexistent crime." See, Kleve v. Hill, 243 F.3d 1149, 1153-54
(9th Cir.2001). It would reasonably follow from the circumstances that
the judges of the San Diego district court would be spirited in their
efforts to vindicate my rights and correct her grave error. To the
contrary, in their desperation to protect Burns’ career, those judges have
shown vigor only in maintaining my convictions for nonexistent crime;
their conduct clearly in violation of their Oaths Of Office.

Prior to donning ebony robes every judge swears an Oath Of Office:

"I [] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to
the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially
discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [] under the
Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me
God."

See, 28 U.S.C. � 453. Gilmore v. People Of The State Of California,
220 F.3d 987, 998 (9th Cir.2000) ("…Congress, like this Court, is bound by and
swears an oath to uphold the Constitution."). Despite such lofty ideals as
expressed in the Constitution’s prohibition against the suspension of the
writ of habeas corpus; despite the Supreme Court’s passionate holdings for
200-years "that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy
... whenever that right is invaded." See, Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch
137, 163 (1803); despite the Ninth Circuit’s firm reiteration that
"[n]o man be condemned for a nonexistent crime," see, Kleve,
supra; despite the Jones ruling establishing that the
government never had authority or jurisdiction of my non-interstate
commerce charged offenses -- an irrefutable and undisputed establishment;
despite the judges’ sworn Oaths Of Office to uphold the Constitution and
laws of the United States, the judges of the San Diego district court have
repeatedly and without exception refused to entertain the merits of my
just and proper petitions asking nothing more than the vacation of my null
and void convictions. They do not dispute -- no one, not even Burns
disputes -- that my convictions for nonexistent crimes violate the Due
Process clause of the Constitution and that my rights have been invaded,
nor do they voice opposition of my entitlement to relief by vacation of
those convictions. But, to protect Burns, those judges simply refuse me
any means by which I may have the merits of my petitions addressed.
Traditional collateral review by way of 28 U.S.C. � 2255 has been blocked
by a labyrinth of procedural rules. The Great Writ of habeas corpus,
spoken of in the Constitution and which may not be suspended, was denied
when the district court illegally re-characterized the � 2241(c)(3)
petition to � 2255 and then, again, refused review on procedural grounds.
The writ of last resort, Coram Nobis (28 U.S.C. � 1651) could not
be so easily denied, so the district court simply refused to acknowledge
its presentation (an oft-repeated pattern, as will be shown momentarily).
No judge of the San Diego district court has ever addressed the merits
underlying my null and void convictions. In summing up, the Supreme Court
invalidated my convictions in May 2000, establishing those convictions to
be in violation of the Constitution; judges swear an Oath Of Office to
uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, thus their
ministerial duty to act proactively to vacate those convictions. But those
judges have slammed shut and bolted the doors of the courthouse to keep
out review of my convictions. Rather than allow Burns to be tarnished,
those judges have chosen instead to deliberately fail their Oaths Of
Office, violate the Constitution and ignore the laws of the United States.
They prefer to keep me falsely convicted and imprisoned for the sake of
Burns’ career. The Tobias Court held that any judge who fails to
act by setting aside the judgment of null and void convictions "is guilty
of false imprisonment." See, Ex Parte Tobias Watkins, 28 U.S. 193, 203
(1830). At this point the story gets worse!

Your investigations will prove a long and
tortured list of horrors by those judges, for example:

Burns secreted to judge Rhoades false tape
recordings which he deliberately mismarked to incriminate me in a
fabricated murder plot (tapes Rhoades either never listened to, or made
no effort beyond Burns’ word to authenticate the voices thereon) -- once
the secret tapes were discoveredthey were proven not to be me
but two roll-playing government minions;

In other proceedings before Rhoades, he
once found that my assertions of a government witness having committed
perjury were not of import, because the perjury was corroborated by
another government witness -- essentially finding that two lies make a
truth;

In civil litigation where a jail-house
snitch turned government agent averred in his own pleadings that he was
"at all times a government agent" working for Burns (a fact Burns
concealed from the defense and the court), judge Brewster ignored the
agent’s averment and made a finding that there was no evidence that the
snitch was a working government agent;

Brewster then dismissed that case to
protect Burns. When asked to reconsider the dismissal as contrary to
Supreme Court law, Brewster refused. The Ninth Circuit reversed the
dismissal and ordered it to conform to Supreme Court law;

When Burns’ perjuries in two personal
declarations were exposed, judge Singleton (an out-of-state judge hand
picked by Burns’ protectors) squashed Grand Jury review for criminal
prosecution by recasting the perjuries as merely "misinformation",
although conceding that Burns had, in fact, provided such
‘misinformation’ in both the federal and state prosecutions;

A Federal Rules Of Civil Procedures, Rule
60(b)(6) motion seeking review of Burns’ "fraud upon the [federal
sentencing] court" was swept under the rug as procedurally barred so as
not to have to address Burns’ transgressions;

When the government - - confident in her
favored position -- filed a critical pleading 42 days late without
permission or explanation and later did not oppose my motion, supported
by the two controlling Supreme Court cases, that their pleading be
stricken from the case, the judge simply ignored my motion and the law,
providing the government the favoritism they know is theirs in matters
between Burns and myself;

The heart and soul of Rule 60(b)(4) is to
correct null and void convictions, but judge Whelan refused to even
acknowledge my submission to him of a proper 60(b)(4)
argument;

When federal and state motions were filed
for the return of evidence/property both governments opposed the motions
based on arguments that those items might be necessary in any future
retria1(s) -- all the while Burns was covertly, and without court
authorization, engaged in destroying that very
evidence/property;

In a bizarre proceeding, Burns sought to
change the specific terms of my federal sentences (a fancy
costing taxpayers tens-of-thousands of dollars). Rhoades indulged the
child, and after years of contentious litigation, violated well
established law in not only changing the terms of my sentences, but
doing so without my presence -- all to little value except the waste of
taxpayers’ dollars and to sate Burns’ ego;

Because of the obscene favoritism shown to
Burns by his fellow judges, every judge of the San Diego district court
had been recused from four cases involving Burns and myself that
preceded the filing of the � 2241(c)(3) petition. Within that petition I
again sought the recusal of those judges. Justice be damned, judge
Miller completely ignored the recusal request, re-characterized the
petition, dismissed it, then ignored my motion for reconsideration which
pointed out that his failure to address the recusal request violated
Supreme Court law. Judge Miller’s "appearance of impropriety" was
presented to the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit in Case No.
#02-89037. The Judicial Council covered their eyes to Miller’s obvious
misconduct;

In an Associated Press article of 16 July,
2002, it was noted that of 766 Judicial Complaints filed in 2001, only
one resulted in a penalty. Judges "have an obligation to police
themselves, and of course that is the problem," said American University
Law Professor, Paul Rice. Furthermore, Rice pointed out that "[j]udges
sit on the boards that review allegations of ethical misconduct and are
loath to punish a colleague."

On 19 July, 2002, I filed my Request To
Dismiss Indictments, premised on established law that a judgment of
conviction rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction over the charged
offense is a nullity (judgment for nonexistent offense) and can never
become final. Because the judgment can never become final the
proceedings remain, by definition, pending, and a defendant may move the
court at any time to dismiss the fatally flawed underlying indictment.
See, Federal ‘Rules Of Criminal Procedure, Rule 12(b)(2). Judge
Rhoades issued a four sentence denial -- no facts or law cited -- opining
simply that I pled guilty, thus am stuck with the conviction (albeit to
an offense that does not exist). Contrary to Rhoades’ opinion, the
Constitution and Supreme Court hold that no man can be convicted, by
judge, jury or plea of an offense that does not exist. Like judge
Miller, Rhoades ignored my request that he recuse himself from the case;
Judicial Complaint Case No. #02-50478 was blinked away;

On appeal of judge Rhoades' denial, a
three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit summarily dismissed, opining that
the constitutional question of a conviction for a nonexistent offense is
so "insubstantial’ as not to warrant consideration! That incredible
opinion is now under reconsideration by that three-judge panel and/or
the entire body of judges of the Ninth Circuit via Rehearing En
Banc(Case Nos. 02-50477 & 02-50478);

Rehearing En Banc in the above cases was
denied on 13 May 2003. Certiorari to the Supreme Court has been
presented.

A � 2241(c)(3) petition in Los Angeles was
abruptly, and without warning, transferred down to San Diego, and from
there to Alaska, where it was immediately considered a motion under �
2255 and dismissed. I paid the fee of $105.00 and filed my Notice Of
Appeal; Application For Certificate Of Appealability. Incredibly, the
district court ignored the Notice Of Appeal and sent the Application For
Certificate Of Appealabi1ity to the Court Of appeals for consideration
as an application to file a second or successive motion under �
2255. I immediately notified the Court Of appeals that I had not made
any filing to them, and notified the district court of her error. The
Court Of Appeals subsequently denied my non-existent filing; the
district court has done nothing except pocket the fee of $105.00 (there
is no filing fee for second/successive certification
application). I have since asked the Court Of Appeals to vacate its
Order of denial issued in regards to my non-existent filing, and have
motioned the district court to rule on the properly filed application
For Certificate Of Appealability. This is just another example of the
shell game being played by the courts to avoid the merits of the issues
in regards to my, null and void, federal judgments of
conviction.

Filed complaints to the Chief Judge of the
district court, Ms. Huff, concerning the gross misconduct of all judges in
matters surrounding Burns were summarily brushed aside with excuses of not
getting involved in cases presided over by other judges. Curiously, a
number of judges virulently opposed the hiring of Burns as a magistrate
due to his well known lack of ethics, moral failings and illegal conduct
in securing convictions. Nonetheless, he was voted in, not so much of a
promotion as being kicked out of the United States Attorney’s Office for
such egregious character flaws. Now the story gets even worse -- much
worse!

In November, 2001, I caused to be served
upon every magistrate and judge of the San Diego district court my Notice
To All Judges And Magistrates Of Their Oath Of Office; Duty To Uphold The
Constitution (In Re: Dave Harrison; Case No. #02-CV-0114-W). However, due
to the recalcitrance of the Court Clerks the notice was not filed until 17
January, 2002. The Notice expounded as to the judges’ duty to do equal
justice and uphold the Constitution, thus their duty -- ministerial in
nature and so plain as to be free from doubt -- to vacate my erroneous
convictions. Despite the notice’s separate filing, individualized Case
number (#02-CV-0114-W), particularized issue, pertinent case law and
distinct nature wholly removed from the � 2241(c)(3) case, judge Whelan
opined the Notice to be part of the � 2241(c)(3) case, then spouted the
party line of having no jurisdiction over the Notice case and dismissed
it. Every judge, either by acts of commission or omission, turned away
from the Notice, their duty and the Constitution. But Whelan wasn’t done,
he then ordered that no further filings be accepted by the Court Clerks.
No appeal of his abuses would be allowed. "Today as in ages past, we are
not without tragic proof that the exalted power of some governments to
punish manufactured crime dictatorially is the handmaid of tyranny."
See, Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 241 (1940). As history has
shown, tyranny never travels without its alter ego persecution.

In the earliest stages of my appeals of the
murder conviction Burns conveyed to me, through attorney Alan May, an
ominous threat (monitored and tape recorded prison phone). Burns
threatened that I either drop my appeals and make no further efforts to
delve into the conviction or he would use "all the power and resources of
the government against [my] family." As the appeals continued and scrutiny
of Burns’ misconduct intensified he made good on his threats; numerous
aggressive and heavy-handed "investigations" were instituted against my
family by the Internal Revenue Service and Federal Bureau Of
Investigations. Repeated threats of prosecution and imprisonment were
issued, along with the tacit but clear message to back off of Burns or
suffer the consequences. Despite the years of persecution by various
branches of the government, no wrong-doing by any member of my family was
ever charged. The toll in other ways has been devastating.

>From bogus prosecutions of nonexistent
crimes to null and void convictions, to rogue judges whose ill-agenda
leaves me convicted and falsely imprisoned, to tyranny and persecution,
this is truly a case that began in horror and descended straight away into
the nether world. Partisan relationships, career damaging exposure of all
judges concerned and ill-agendas each play their part to explain why those
magistrates and judges choose deliberately not to uphold the Constitution
and laws of the United States, and violate their Oaths Of Office. As long
as the protection of Burns is of higher priority than the Constitution,
laws, and their Oaths, then justice and vindication will forever be
oppressed by tyranny and persecution. Those judges as a whole, having
taken the rogue in, fear to vacate my erroneous convictions lest they
sacrifice Burns and jeopardize their own careers. Our form of government
was intended to suppress injustice, but its effect in my cases has been to
embody and perpetuate it. Such judges are no longer in "good behavior" as
required for them to hold office.

Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution
states that judges "…shall hold their offices during good behavior…" Where
judges join together to thwart justice for the purpose of protecting a
rogue - - a criminal - - within their ranks, indeed, would leave me falsely
imprisoned in furtherance of their ill-agenda, those judges can no longer
be considered in "good behavior" and must be impeached. Left
unaccountable, judges of that ilk would surely do the same to any citizen
not graced by their favoritism. The citizenry deserves a judiciary that
will administer justice equally to all people, judges who will uphold the
Constitution and laws of the United States. Moreover, the people of this
nation have the right to expect their politicians and the media not to
blink away facts, such as exist in this case, clearly exposing a group of
judges who no longer feel nor act bound by their sworn Oaths Of Office,
but administer justice based on partisan relationships, concerns about
career damaging exposure and ill-agendas. Such judges are no longer in
"good behavior", thus unfit to hold office. They must be
impeached.

Let me apologize for the length of this
writing. While it was not my wish to take up your precious time, there was
a lot of information to convey. Truly, what you have read here is but the
tip of the iceberg. There is much more information and supporting evidence
concerning additional horrors surrounding Burns, his fellow judges and the
Court Clerks. State and federal case files teem with documentary evidence
of the asserted matters herein. And there is so much more! Again, my
apologies.

My family, friends, supporters, and I, ask
for your concern and outrage and that you take proactive steps to
investigate the injustices herein described.

If you have any questions or comments, or would like to correspond with Dave, please
Contact Me.
Home-Menu